keepreal

keepreal

Lives in United Kingdom Enfield, United Kingdom
Works as a Retired
Joined on Mar 24, 2007
About me:

Amateur with a passion for pictorial photography of more than fifty years.

Comments

Total: 172, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »
In reply to:

keepreal: I made a composite of images of the X-Pro 1, Canon G1 X and my choice of second camera, the Nikon D5000. In the absence of the actual equipment, it helps to come to conclusions about how useful each of them might be as a second camera.

Have a look at www.flickr.com/photos/contrajur/6695505971/in/photostream and, if you click on the image, you can see it larger and clearer.

There are also links there to so far to a small number of my photos to prove that I do not spend all my time on such trivialities!

As a smaller, lighter camera the Nikon D5000 with 18-55mm VR at 825g must seem absurd. However, that saves me 678g against my D300 with Sigma 12-24mm. It is the best compromise for a second camera, since I am not prepared to use one where I have doubts the quality is good enough to make fine prints as large as A2.

One magazine described the D5000 as having the best dynamic range of entry level DSLRs. I like HDR lighting in most of my landscapes, so that was a factor. I decided against compacts because their sensors are too small to give good dynamic range and sharpness. Lenses for compacts and mirrorless cameras with interchangeable in APS-C and Four Thirds all have too much distortion, especially in wide angle. I expect the Canon G1 X will too. I shoot RAW and want to have no constraint on which RAW developer I use, so distortion correction would be an issue, probably not for the Fuji X-Pro 1. I also wanted an optical viewfinder but the X-Pro 1 is too expensive as a second camera.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 22:26 UTC
In reply to:

Neodp: ' but twice as many people bought them as we expected.'

Hello! You manufacturers keep acting like you know what people will buy, but you are not always doing your best, why? Surprise, surprise! I guess there is a market, after-all, for "mirror-less" cameras, huh? It's a red hot one.

BTW, we know you are milking the first adopters now, just because this is one of the few cameras, to get MOST things right (there will never be a perfect camera). What gets me, is why camera companies do not do thier best. Such as Fuju is playing at, here. But then there's the price. Fuji, do not mistake pent-up demand for a balanced, state of the art photographers camera, as a pricing guide. You're going to miss the mass market (more total profit), if you do. I'm sure this camera will still be said to be for a certain class of photographer, when really, it's simply far over priced.

You are absolutely right. Trouble is with so many idiots prepared not only to spend an arm and a leg but also then to do the same time and time again for a miniscule upgrade, not only cameras and lenses but Photoshop too. The manufacturers are quite ready to fleece those of us like that.

Hey! Does anybody out there take decent pictures? Or is there not enough time after concentrating on keeping up to date with the latest equipment and choosing between the alternatives, time and time again?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 18:59 UTC
On Preview:canong1x (1032 comments in total)

If anyone is interested, I made a composite of images of the X-Pro 1, Canon G1 X and my choice of second camera, the Nikon D5000. In the absence of the actual equipment, it helps to come to conclusions about how useful each of them might be as a second camera.

Have a look at www.flickr.com/photos/contrajur/6695505971/in/photostream and, if you click on the image, you can see it larger and clearer.

There are also links there to so far to a small number of my photos to prove that I do not spend all my time on such trivialities!

Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 17:50 UTC as 211th comment
On Fujifilm X-Pro1 preview (756 comments in total)

I made a composite of images of the X-Pro 1, Canon G1 X and my choice of second camera, the Nikon D5000. In the absence of the actual equipment, it helps to come to conclusions about how useful each of them might be as a second camera.

Have a look at www.flickr.com/photos/contrajur/6695505971/in/photostream and, if you click on the image, you can see it larger and clearer.

There are also links there to so far to a small number of my photos to prove that I do not spend all my time on such trivialities!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 17:30 UTC as 144th comment

I made a composite of images of the X-Pro 1, Canon G1 X and my choice of second camera, the Nikon D5000. In the absence of the actual equipment, it helps to come to conclusions about how useful each of them might be as a second camera.

Have a look at www.flickr.com/photos/contrajur/6695505971/in/photostream and, if you click on the image, you can see it larger and clearer.

There are also links there to so far to a small number of my photos to prove that I do not spend all my time on such trivialities!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 17:28 UTC as 16th comment

I made a composite of images of the X-Pro 1, Canon G1 X and my choice of second camera, the Nikon D5000. In the absence of the actual equipment, it helps to come to conclusions about how useful each of them might be as a second camera.

Have a look at www.flickr.com/photos/contrajur/6695505971/in/photostream and, if you click on the image, you can see it larger and clearer.

There are also links there to so far to a small number of my photos to prove that I do not spend all my time on such trivialities!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 17:28 UTC as 59th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

keepreal: It is Adobe's role to keep flooding us with updates. Now DP Review is doing it. Articles on the Canon G1 X, that and several threads already on the Fuji XPro-1 and who knows where else and all within less than a week. DP Review now also has a high proportion of useless articles like software to put on your mobile, rubbish to buy a week before Christmas and what you can waste up to $20 or more on.

I worked in Misinformation Technology for 40 years and hated it. (I only stayed because I could not earn enough to raise a family in another field.)

Changes on a whim every few days, too much information, too much email, even if correct or more up to date is not useful. It is a nightmare. Metaphorically, the ink has not even dried before it is updated or out of date.

It is bad enough with camera models being superceded every few months. Please just shut up. Those sample images above on their own are a complete waste of time.

In deference to those in this sub-thread, especially Len_Gee I made a composite of images of the X-Pro 1, Canon G1 X and my choice of second camera. I am not in serious need of another pastime as Len_Gee suggests but I am retired so have much time to waste when I choose.

Have a look at www.flickr.com/photos/contrajur/6695505971/in/photostream and, if you click on the image, you can see it larger and clearer.

(There are also links there to so far to a small number of my photos to prove that I do not spend all my time wingeing!)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 17:22 UTC
On Preview:canong1x (1032 comments in total)
In reply to:

stephanie de leng: I was all ready to pre-order this until I read about the optical viewfinder. 80% of the image is just not good enough as I do not like to crop my images, but prefer the composition to be spot on out of camera. I cannot use a camera without a good optical viewfinder and this is the sticking point for so many small cameras. I tried with the panasonic G3's EVF for two months and gave up. This canon G1 X sounds so exciting as a portable backup come travel camera for a pro and it is such a shame that manufacturers do not realise how important this detail is, along with great image quality and FAST focusing. You can get rid of the fancy modes and touch screens and all that. In the old days it was easier to have a small emergency camera attached to your belt and get great results as you used the same film in it as in the main big pro camera and a lot of the compacts such as the canon sureshot had excellent lenses. I look forward to the fujifilm X Pro-1....

I see no good reason to have to put up with a garbage viewfinder for my second camera. In the old days a few fairly cheap cameras had an Albada finder built in where a white frame was projected into the field of view, like the Voigtlander Vito BL. More difficult with a zoom.

I was looking for a more compact and lightweight alternative to my Nikon D300 at 903g with the Sigma 12-24mm lens adding another 600g. None of the Four Thirds fit was to my liking as I want a proper viewfinder so in the end I got a compact DSLR. It is anything but compact except as compared with something like the D300.

I researched all my alternatives and got the D5000 with the 18-55mm VR lens. With that I have an excellent viewfinder and one of the best dynamic ranges in entry level DSLRs. It is anything but compact of course but compared with its bigger brother fairly small, lightweight and easier to carry around where my first camera is not.

It remains the best compromise and the G1X does not change that.

Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 11:17 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: It is Adobe's role to keep flooding us with updates. Now DP Review is doing it. Articles on the Canon G1 X, that and several threads already on the Fuji XPro-1 and who knows where else and all within less than a week. DP Review now also has a high proportion of useless articles like software to put on your mobile, rubbish to buy a week before Christmas and what you can waste up to $20 or more on.

I worked in Misinformation Technology for 40 years and hated it. (I only stayed because I could not earn enough to raise a family in another field.)

Changes on a whim every few days, too much information, too much email, even if correct or more up to date is not useful. It is a nightmare. Metaphorically, the ink has not even dried before it is updated or out of date.

It is bad enough with camera models being superceded every few months. Please just shut up. Those sample images above on their own are a complete waste of time.

I whine when there are frequent entries that add little or nothing. I have an RSS feed and I thought it was worth having and that when I was informed there was something here it was not merely the pretence of something. It would make more sense when the updates had enough to add and that another visit was worth making.

Nevertheless, point taken. You are right. What has sense got to do with it? So goodbye.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 03:59 UTC

It is Adobe's role to keep flooding us with updates. Now DP Review is doing it. Articles on the Canon G1 X, that and several threads already on the Fuji XPro-1 and who knows where else and all within less than a week. DP Review now also has a high proportion of useless articles like software to put on your mobile, rubbish to buy a week before Christmas and what you can waste up to $20 or more on.

I worked in Misinformation Technology for 40 years and hated it. (I only stayed because I could not earn enough to raise a family in another field.)

Changes on a whim every few days, too much information, too much email, even if correct or more up to date is not useful. It is a nightmare. Metaphorically, the ink has not even dried before it is updated or out of date.

It is bad enough with camera models being superceded every few months. Please just shut up. Those sample images above on their own are a complete waste of time.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 01:57 UTC as 78th comment | 8 replies
On Adobe faces criticism for change of upgrade policy article (398 comments in total)

What proportion of readers who use Photoshop share my view that upgrades for most people are a waste of money. I was the lucky winner of CS2 for my prowess with Elements 2 where the judge Martin Evening said he could not see any signs of the heavy retouching I had done to remove distracting elements even though I supplied him with a copy of the original. I would not dream of paying the hike for the full software. Of course if you are into graphics rather than photography, it might be a different story.

I have dabbled with trial versions of CS3 and CS4 but did not like them. CS2 has a lean uncluttered interface and I like it that way. Moreover if you are interested in pictures rather than photo technology, does it really matter having the latest version or is it Adobe merely cashing in on acquisitive users? I cannot imagine Claude Monet arguing over which kinds of brush or pigments to use with Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Frédéric Bazilleor, Alfred Sisley or having to keep trying new ones.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 01:21 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

keepreal: A lot of interesting comments at DPR about the XPro1. This is my last word - I have just decided against it.

Judging from what I have read here, I think many older people, including me, yearn for the best of the film era enhanced by what is possible with digital technology rather than also degraded by it. Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Leica M were beautiful - works of art and engineering in their own right as well as superb quality and at a fairly reasonable price. Even several cheaper cameras like the Kodak Retina up to the IIIc were refined and a pleasure to use. Kodak in their heyday.

Today the best cameras are very, very expensive but far surpass in the quality they can deliver. But the quality in their form and handling - it's chalk and cheese but which way round?

Those were the days mid last century and the XPro1 is only a poor imitation costing an arm and a leg. You youngsters do not know what all round quality is. Most of you have never seen it in anything!

I agree that it does affect the issue but the Olympus lens is superior at any focal length they have in common despite it being recorded with half the pixels.

Further to my original comments and Zvonimir Tosic disagreeing with me, look at the price of the Canon PowerShot G1 X, which I expect to be good. However, it does not even have interchangeable lens and how many full months earnings leaving nothing behind to get for most people?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 00:57 UTC
On Fujifilm X-Pro1 preview (756 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: At www.youtube.com/user/fujiguys/feed there are three very detailed videos from Fuji. The first gives a 19 minute leisurely but highly informative account and the other two lower down that page "Fuji Guys - Fujifilm X-Pro1 - Hands-on Preview (1/2) and (2/2) possibly cover some more. (Not yet watched.)

Did you know that Fuji are behind many Hasselblad cameras and make some of the lenses? That says a lot.

A couple of days ago I said the X-Pro1 was too expensive as a second camera to a DSLR like my Nikon D300 plus 3 zoom lenses but now I am beginning to think in time I might even decide on it as the replacement. I love my D300 with the Sigma 12-24mm lens but when the Fuji 15mm f/2.8 comes out, perhaps later in 2012, I may have to reconsider. The bulk and the weight are far too great for my liking and a far more compact alternative which equals or surpasses it in quality has to be seriously considered. But I will not rush into it as there will be a huge loss selling what I already have.

Regrettably I cannot but I surfed extensively and unexpectedly found that out. What I have said is corroborated:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/hasselblad-h1.shtml

"In September 2002 Hasselblad announced the H1... in large part manufactured by Fuji and it features Fuji made lenses."

See also
http://www.hasselbladinfo.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-2662.html

That is just to convince you I have not made this up!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2012 at 23:52 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: A lot of interesting comments at DPR about the XPro1. This is my last word - I have just decided against it.

Judging from what I have read here, I think many older people, including me, yearn for the best of the film era enhanced by what is possible with digital technology rather than also degraded by it. Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Leica M were beautiful - works of art and engineering in their own right as well as superb quality and at a fairly reasonable price. Even several cheaper cameras like the Kodak Retina up to the IIIc were refined and a pleasure to use. Kodak in their heyday.

Today the best cameras are very, very expensive but far surpass in the quality they can deliver. But the quality in their form and handling - it's chalk and cheese but which way round?

Those were the days mid last century and the XPro1 is only a poor imitation costing an arm and a leg. You youngsters do not know what all round quality is. Most of you have never seen it in anything!

"And you knew you purchased a quality thing because new models by the same manufacturer were not announced every month, and did not become obsolete the next month, like they are today!"

So I am glad you agree with me. Cameras today may be cheaper in terms of earnings power but only if you ignore the march of technology and keep with what you have got at least for ten years or more.

The progress is fast but not quite as fast as most people seem to think. They get lured into wasting money by very persuasive manufactures and pundits in the media whose objective is profit above anything else.

I will give you an example. I sold my son an Olympus C-5060 which I bought just to see what digital was all about. It was a high quality compact and cost me 295 GBP in 2005. Later, he wanted something smaller to go backpacking so got a Panasonic Lumix TZ6, paying a little more. He now takes the Olympus on holiday with him again. It has 5 mb instead of 10 but gives better results.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2012 at 23:35 UTC

A lot of interesting comments at DPR about the XPro1. This is my last word - I have just decided against it.

Judging from what I have read here, I think many older people, including me, yearn for the best of the film era enhanced by what is possible with digital technology rather than also degraded by it. Hasselblad, Rolleiflex, Leica M were beautiful - works of art and engineering in their own right as well as superb quality and at a fairly reasonable price. Even several cheaper cameras like the Kodak Retina up to the IIIc were refined and a pleasure to use. Kodak in their heyday.

Today the best cameras are very, very expensive but far surpass in the quality they can deliver. But the quality in their form and handling - it's chalk and cheese but which way round?

Those were the days mid last century and the XPro1 is only a poor imitation costing an arm and a leg. You youngsters do not know what all round quality is. Most of you have never seen it in anything!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2012 at 19:57 UTC as 22nd comment | 12 replies
In reply to:

Phil Flash: I seem to remember the day when a Canon QL17 film rangefinder was inexpensive, high performance, and easy to use. The world has gotten a little too complicated.

It sort of feels like Fuji is trying to take us back to simple times, but it's going to cost you.

Fuji is not taking us back to simple times, only making it a little bit more organised.

Technology in the market place is mediocre, not just in photography. You microwave and clothes washer have so many cycles they are confusing. They only need three or four.

The world has gone mad. The world in near recession and for so long prove it if you still need convincing or, more accurately, that the conditions that made it possible were allowed even encouraged.

If only I could still get colour film processed properly or the chemicals to do it myself in small sized quantities. It was only that that forced me to take the plunge though I do admit digital is better in spite of the baggage.

Digital camera should primarily replicate what film cameras can do but doing it better because they can. That does not include things like simulated shutter sounds, face recognition and as I have predicted will come, bum recognition. Additional features should be there only because they are needed. I wish.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2012 at 19:22 UTC
In reply to:

Tee1up: Having spent more than 2 decades with film SLRs, it's actually painful to watch all the compromises that pros/enthusiasts have to make with modern day digital cameras. Sorry if this makes you roll your eyes but I would head off to the most remote parts of the planet with a suitcase full of Kodachrome 25/64 and a F3HP and the only thing I ever had to worry about was a small battery and local food quality. I sadly sold my film rig and am still trying to find a satisfactory replacement that doesn't need a support team of electrical engineers to fix/explain malfunctions. I am not a pro so I have resisted going after a D3/D4 but increasingly I am getting the feeling that for an agressive photographer, this may be the best option.

With me 4 decades with film SLRs and TLRs and I do agree. The best were the real deal. Today's top end digital are huge, heavy, bulbous and appallingly complicated. Take the new Nikon D4 and its rivals not just for example, take them and keep them. They are idiotic.

If I was CEO of a top end manufacturer, I would have designed and built a DSLR with lenses at or close to the Leitz or Zeiss class. No linear distortion or any other, the body no bigger than an Olympus OM and it would not have software more than the absolute minimum. It would just shoot RAW and have ISO, exposure adjustment and bracketing, AE and or AF lock, spot metering and centre-weighted - JPEG, contrast and saturation only if possible in that size. I would also make a Leica M lookalike scaled down nearly to the OM but thinner.

For either the lenses would be small and lightweight, not like a pea (the lens elements) in a coconut shell.

Why do we not have such as this now? Are there good reasons? I really doubt it.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2012 at 18:50 UTC
In reply to:

PaulSnowcat: So they've decided to aim above NEX7 and make "the only one" camera, not an addition to a DSLR and price it accordingly, i.e. very high... Risky.

NEX7 offers great IQ, alot more lenses, and lower price. So new FUJI's sensor must be something fantastic to make someone to prefer this camera.

From what I have read the NEX7 is let down by two things, the price and the lenses. The lens choice is small and their quality a joke when you are spending that kind of money on the body.

I use RAW and a third party HDR program as the RAW developer even with single frame shots. Oloneo PhotoEngine is way better than other HDR programs I have tried in most respects.

I want lenses that are not raw and then cooked in software. Most digital lenses are, which why when I replaced my full frame Nikon F80s with the D300 I kept my quality FX lenses to use on it which, other than equipment of Leica quality and bankrupting myself, is about as good as it gets.

The Samsung NX200 is neat and tidy and, at the price, would have been a great second camera even without an optical viewfinder, which I dearly wish to have. I thought of getting one to go in the flash shoe with a prime wide angle, but the distortion of the lenses is appalling, even worse than the Sony.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2012 at 18:16 UTC
In reply to:

Nikonworks: I read Thom Hogan's characterization of Fuji's move into a mirrorless niche:
" Minor bet made (by Fuji) by putting interchangeable primes on an updated X100 frame (upcoming X-Pro1)."

This suggests that we should not 'bet' (buy) the new Fuji X system until they raise their 'bet' perhaps by getting their zoom lenes to market.

Why invest in a new system that was not that much of an investment for Fuji to enter in the first place?

Can't wait until a production review.

I think you raise an important point. The X-Pro1 and its sister models will remain in their infancy until there is a comprehensive range of lenses, they and the bodies have been on the market some time and we all know for sure whether they are top notch or only nearly.

I envy the guy who has the money that he can spend a fortune easily and early but despise him for his superficiality in not knowing what he is doing other than flashing his wealth around.

If I have to wait until the dust has settled and the new Fuji equipment is a stable and predictable proposition, then I would do the same even if I had the means to jump more quickly. I did just that, waiting until I bought the Nikon D300 so that I knew what I was doing, not merely jumping on the bandwagon.

I get the impression that for some the pleasure is in the equipment. I am interested only in pictures, the end results.

“Two things rob people of their peace of mind: work unfinished and work not yet begun" Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2012 at 17:56 UTC
In reply to:

CharlesB58: Why mention a camera like this as a replacement for a FF dslr, much less any dslr? Why do some people not seem to get it that not every mirrorless camera is supposed to be a dslr replacement? To me it's an amusing (and sometimes annoying) aspect of the dslr/mirrorless "debate" that people keep saying "mirrorless can't do what my dslr can do..."

There are those of us who appreciate the "old school", 35mm rangefinder approach to photography. I would suggest people don't look a the X-Pro1 as a replacement for a dslr any more than people looked at the Leica M4 as a 35mm slr replacement during the film era.

The same goes for zooms. I'm sure they will come, but it's obvious Fuji is not trying to beat the competition "mano a mano" but rather is using the success of the X100 as a indicator of the niche they are wanting to fill.

I favour DSLRs but only because of the optical viewfinder precision and clarity, especially with zoom lenses. Nonetheless, I yearn for something at most half the weight and bulk. Both are an issue with my Nikon D300 with the Sigma 12-24mm and two additional, bigger and heavier zoom lenses. It is fine when out on a serious photo opportunity but less so when not, just wanting to lug the equipment along with you just in case of the unexpected.

In the early 1970s I lifted the latest Leica M to my eye in a shop just to satisfy my curiosity. It was way beyond my pocket. I turned the focusing ring and knew immediately when I had hit the spot without going past and coming back again even though I had never tried it before, the viewfinder optics were that good.

So, a mirrorless digital that has that precision and is affordable would demand some very serious thought. An X-Pro1 with the 15mm f/2.8 sounds like it might be just that and if there is a smaller nearly as good model, even better.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 13, 2012 at 17:43 UTC
Total: 172, showing: 121 – 140
« First‹ Previous56789Next ›Last »